DOCSLIB.ORG

Flexible Generation of Linked Open Data Triples from NLP Frameworks for Automatic Knowledge Base Construction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Flexible Generation of Linked Open Data Triples from NLP Frameworks for Automatic Knowledge Base Construction The LODeXporter: Flexible Generation of Linked Open Data Triples from NLP Frameworks for Automatic Knowledge Base Construction Rene´ Witte and Bahar Sateli Semantic Software Lab Concordia University, Montreal,´ QC, Canada http://www.semanticsoftware.info Abstract We present LODeXporter, a novel approach for exporting Natural Language Processing (NLP) results to a graph-based knowledge base, following Linked Open Data (LOD) principles. The rules for transforming NLP entities into Resource Description Framework (RDF) triples are described in a custom mapping language, which is defined in RDF Schema (RDFS) itself, providing a separation of concerns between NLP pipeline engineering and knowledge base engineering. LODeXporter is available as an open source component for the GATE (General Architecture for Text Engineering) framework. Keywords: Linked Open Data, Automatic Knowledge Base Construction, Semantic Web 1. Introduction web technologies, like RDF, to publish structured, open Knowledge bases in standardized graph-based formats have datasets that can be interlinked and shared automatically become increasingly important in modern applications, such between machines. All data within the LOD cloud have as personal intelligent assistants. Due to the large amount unique URIs. When dereferenced, the URIs provide useful, of formalized knowledge required, automatic knowledge machine-readable information about that entity, as well as base (KB) construction is a crucial step that typically spans links to other related entities on the web of data. multiple information sources (such as structured databases, Automatic Knowledge Base Construction. As semantic sensors, and documents). A significant amount of knowl- knowledge bases, triplestores are especially well suited for edge resides in natural language text and can be automat- connecting previously isolated knowledge sources (so-called ically extracted through existing or custom-made Natural “information silos”). Towards this end, various solutions Language Processing (NLP) components and pipelines. Yet, have been developed for converting existing sources to a so far no generic solution existed for exporting the results knowledge base, e.g., RDB2RDF for creating RDF data from of an NLP pipeline into a knowledge base. a relational database.2 Natural language documents are an Our contribution is a novel technique for converting the re- abundant source of rich semantic knowledge. One of the sults of an NLP pipeline into an LOD-compliant KB, based best known LOD datasets, DBpedia,3 is a large knowledge on the Resource Description Format (RDF) (Cyganiak et base that is automatically generated from the Wikipedia al., 2014) and RDF Schema (RDFS) (Brickley and Guha, (Bizer et al., 2009), with several billions of in-bound links 2014) W3C standards. The concrete mapping of NLP re- from other open datasets. Similarly, custom solutions exist sults to entities in the knowledge base is defined through a that convert the results of a specific NLP pipeline into a mapping language, which is itself written in RDFS. This pro- pre-defined knowledge base. vides high flexibility, as the same NLP pipeline can drive the However, so far there existed no generic solution for popu- generation of triples in different KBs with different vocabu- lating a knowledge base with the results from a text mining laries. It also relieves the NLP engineer from dealing with pipeline. While it is always possible to develop custom ex- the technical details of generating correct Uniform Resource port strategies, this is not a practicable solution in a modern Identifiers (URIs), thereby providing an agile solution for agile data science workflow, where it often becomes nec- bringing NLP results onto the Linked Open Data (LOD) essary to experiment with different knowledge bases and cloud (Heath and Bizer, 2011). representation vocabularies; typical examples are shared LODeXporter has been implemented based on the Gen- tasks, where the expected format of the knowledge base is eral Architecture for Text Engineering (GATE) framework prescribed and existing NLP pipelines need to be adapted to (Cunningham et al., 2013) and is available as open source a challenge-specific format. (LGPLv3) on GitHub.1 2. Foundations 3. Design of LODeXporter In this section, we provide brief background information on the foundations of our approach. We now describe our design decisions behind LODeXporter in detail. Linked Data. Linked Open Data (LOD) (Heath and Bizer, 2011; Wood et al., 2014) is the practice of using semantic 2Relational Databases to RDF (RDB2RDF), https://www.w3. 1LODeXporter on GitHub, https://github.com/ org/2001/sw/wiki/RDB2RDF SemanticSoftwareLab/TextMining-LODeXporter 3DBpedia, http://wiki.dbpedia.org/ 2423 protocol configurable Base URI unique run id type annot id export rule z }| { z }| { z }| { z }| { z }| { z }| { < http:// semanticsoftware.info/lodexporter/ 74a79e9f-0bce-411f-a174-18cc84790bf8/ Person/ 33383# GATEPersonMapping > | {z } Subject URI Figure 1: Anatomy of a LODeXporter-generated Subject URI 3.1. Requirements URI Generation. One of the core features of LODeX- Our high-level vision is the design of a new NLP component porter is the generation of URIs for LOD triples from text that can be added to any existing NLP pipeline, thereby (R4). In designing the URI generation scheme, we had to providing functionality to export the text analysis results strike a balance between (a) conforming to LOD best prac- in linked data format. We derived a number of detailed tices; (b) taking into account the NLP source of the URIs; requirements from this vision: and their (c) usability, in particular for querying knowledge bases that mix NLP-generated knowledge with other sources. Scalability (R1). For the population of large knowledge Figure1 shows an example for a subject URI that was gener- bases, it must be possible to scale out the generation of ated for a single Person instance in a document. Conforming triples, i.e., running pipelines on multiple (cloud) instances to LOD best practices, URIs are HTTP-resolvable. A user- and storing the resulting triples in a networked triplestore. definable run-time parameter specifies the base URI (e.g., The time required to export the annotations as triples must for a public SPARQL endpoint), which should always be a scale linearly with the size of the documents and the number domain ‘owned’ by the user. This is followed by a unique of triples to be exported. run id, which ensures that each new run of LODeXporter Separation of Concerns (R2). Apart from adding a new on the same text generates new URIs. Generally, exposing component to an analysis pipeline, no further changes must implementation details in URIs is discouraged (Wood et al., be required on the NLP side. Thus, we separate the work of 2014). However, re-running NLP pipelines (and therefore a language engineer, developing the NLP pipeline (e.g., to re-generating triples) is an extremely common occurrence find domain-specific entities) from the work of a knowledge in language engineering – for example, after improving a base engineer, who defines the structure of a concrete KB. component, a machine learning model, or experimenting Configurability (R3). The export must be dynamically with different parameters. Hence, we decided that the triples configurable, so that the same NLP pipeline can drive the from different runs of an NLP pipeline must be able to peace- generation of different triples in the same, or multiple differ- fully co-exist in a KB and be easily distinguishable, which ent, knowledge bases. In particular, the vocabularies used in is achieved with the generation of this run id. Next, the the mapping process must be easily changeable, to support semantic (annotation) type, as detected by the NLP pipeline, experiments with different knowledge bases and different is encoded (here “Person”), followed by its unique annota- application scenarios. tion id within a document. Finally, the mapping export rule name is added, as it is possible to export the same annotation LOD Best Practices (R4). The solution must conform to (with the same type) multiple times, using different export the relevant W3C standards on Linked (Open) Data. This rules (e.g., with different vocabularies). includes the recommended format for the generated triples as well as the support of standard protocols for communicating 3.3. Mapping Language with triplestores in a product-independent fashion. The central idea of our approach to automatic KB construc- 3.2. Mapping NLP Annotations to Triples tion from NLP results is to externalize the knowledge about A core idea of our approach is that the concrete mapping, the export process, so that the NLP pipeline can remain un- from NLP results to knowledge base, is not part of the NLP changed (except for adding the LODeXporter component). pipeline itself: Rather, it is externalized in form of a set of This provides the required separation of concerns (R2) and mapping rules that are encoded in the knowledge base itself. makes it possible to easily reuse existing NLP pipelines for In other words, only by dynamically connecting an NLP different knowledge bases. The export rules – how NLP pipeline to a knowledge base is the concrete mapping ef- results are mapped to triples – are themselves described in fected: The same pipeline can so be used to export different form of RDF triples using our new mapping language. Thus, results, using different mapping rules, to multiple knowl- the configuration how a specific knowledge base has
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How to Keep a Knowledge Base Synchronized with Its Encyclopedia Source
    Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-17) How to Keep a Knowledge Base Synchronized with Its Encyclopedia Source Jiaqing Liang12, Sheng Zhang1, Yanghua Xiao134∗ 1School of Computer Science, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Data Science Fudan University, Shanghai, China 2Shuyan Technology, Shanghai, China 3Shanghai Internet Big Data Engineering Technology Research Center, China 4Xiaoi Research, Shanghai, China [email protected], fshengzhang16,[email protected] Abstract However, most of these knowledge bases tend to be out- dated, which limits their utility. For example, in many knowl- Knowledge bases are playing an increasingly im- edge bases, Donald Trump is only a business man even af- portant role in many real-world applications. How- ter the inauguration. Obviously, it is important to let ma- ever, most of these knowledge bases tend to be chines know that Donald Trump is the president of the United outdated, which limits the utility of these knowl- States so that they can understand that the topic of an arti- edge bases. In this paper, we investigate how to cle mentioning Donald Trump is probably related to politics. keep the freshness of the knowledge base by syn- Moreover, new entities are continuously emerging and most chronizing it with its data source (usually ency- of them are popular, such as iphone 8. However, it is hard for clopedia websites). A direct solution is revisiting a knowledge base to cover these entities in time even if the the whole encyclopedia periodically and rerun the encyclopedia websites have already covered them. entire pipeline of the construction of knowledge freshness base like most existing methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning Ontologies from RDF Annotations
    /HDUQLQJÃRQWRORJLHVÃIURPÃ5')ÃDQQRWDWLRQV $OH[DQGUHÃ'HOWHLOÃ&DWKHULQHÃ)DURQ=XFNHUÃ5RVHÃ'LHQJ ACACIA project, INRIA, 2004, route des Lucioles, B.P. 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis, France {Alexandre.Delteil, Catherine.Faron, Rose.Dieng}@sophia.inria.fr $EVWUDFW objects, as in [Mineau, 1990; Carpineto and Romano, 1993; Bournaud HWÃDO., 2000]. In this paper, we present a method for learning Since all RDF annotations are gathered inside a common ontologies from RDF annotations of Web RDF graph, the problem which arises is the extraction of a resources by systematically generating the most description for a given resource from the whole RDF graph. specific generalization of all the possible sets of After a brief description of the RDF data model (Section 2) resources. The preliminary step of our method and of RDF Schema (Section 3), Section 4 presents several consists in extracting (partial) resource criteria for extracting partial resource descriptions. In order descriptions from the whole RDF graph gathering to deal with the intrinsic complexity of the building of a all the annotations. In order to deal with generalization hierarchy, we propose an incremental algorithmic complexity, we incrementally build approach by gradually increasing the size of the descriptions the ontology by gradually increasing the size of the resource descriptions we consider. we consider. The principle of the approach is explained in Section 5 and more deeply detailed in Section 6. Ã ,QWURGXFWLRQ Ã 7KHÃ5')ÃGDWDÃPRGHO The Semantic Web, expected to be the next step that will RDF is the emerging Web standard for annotating resources lead the Web to its full potential, will be based on semantic HWÃDO metadata describing all kinds of Web resources.
    [Show full text]
  • KBART: Knowledge Bases and Related Tools
    NISO-RP-9-2010 KBART: Knowledge Bases and Related Tools A Recommended Practice of the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) and UKSG Prepared by the NISO/UKSG KBART Working Group January 2010 i About NISO Recommended Practices A NISO Recommended Practice is a recommended "best practice" or "guideline" for methods, materials, or practices in order to give guidance to the user. Such documents usually represent a leading edge, exceptional model, or proven industry practice. All elements of Recommended Practices are discretionary and may be used as stated or modified by the user to meet specific needs. This recommended practice may be revised or withdrawn at any time. For current information on the status of this publication contact the NISO office or visit the NISO website (www.niso.org). Published by National Information Standards Organization (NISO) One North Charles Street, Suite 1905 Baltimore, MD 21201 www.niso.org Copyright © 2010 by the National Information Standards Organization and the UKSG. All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. For noncommercial purposes only, this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission in writing from the publisher, provided it is reproduced accurately, the source of the material is identified, and the NISO/UKSG copyright status is acknowledged. All inquires regarding translations into other languages or commercial reproduction or distribution should be addressed to: NISO, One North Charles Street,
    [Show full text]
  • The Ontology Web Language (OWL) for a Multi-Agent Understating
    The Ontology Web Language (OWL) for a Multi- Agent Understating System Mostafa M. Aref Zhengbo Zhou Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT 06601 email: [email protected] Abstract— Computer understanding is a challenge OWL is a Web Ontology Language. It is built on top of problem in Artificial Intelligence. A multi-agent system has RDF – Resource Definition Framework and written in XML. been developed to tackle this problem. Among its modules is It is a part of Semantic Web Vision, and is designed to be its knowledge base (vocabulary agents). This paper interpreted by computers, not for being read by people. discusses the use of the Ontology Web Language (OWL) to OWL became a W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) represent the knowledge base. An example of applying OWL Recommendation in February 2004 [2]. The OWL is a in sentence understanding is given. Followed by an language for defining and instantiating Web ontologies. evaluation of OWL. OWL ontology may include the descriptions of classes, properties, and their instances [3]. Given such ontology, the OWL formal semantics specifies how to derive its logical 1. INTRODUCTION consequences, i.e. facts not literally present in the ontology, but entailed by the semantics. One of various definitions for Artificial Intelligence is “The study of how to make computers do things which, at the Section 2 describes a multi-agents understanding system. moment, people do better”[7]. From the definition of AI Section 3 gives a brief description of a newly standardized mentioned above, “Understanding” can be looked as the technique, Web Ontology Language—OWL.
    [Show full text]
  • Feature Engineering for Knowledge Base Construction
    Feature Engineering for Knowledge Base Construction Christopher Re´y Amir Abbas Sadeghiany Zifei Shany Jaeho Shiny Feiran Wangy Sen Wuy Ce Zhangyz yStanford University zUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison fchrismre, amirabs, zifei, jaeho.shin, feiran, senwu, [email protected] Abstract Knowledge base construction (KBC) is the process of populating a knowledge base, i.e., a relational database together with inference rules, with information extracted from documents and structured sources. KBC blurs the distinction between two traditional database problems, information extraction and in- formation integration. For the last several years, our group has been building knowledge bases with scientific collaborators. Using our approach, we have built knowledge bases that have comparable and sometimes better quality than those constructed by human volunteers. In contrast to these knowledge bases, which took experts a decade or more human years to construct, many of our projects are con- structed by a single graduate student. Our approach to KBC is based on joint probabilistic inference and learning, but we do not see inference as either a panacea or a magic bullet: inference is a tool that allows us to be systematic in how we construct, debug, and improve the quality of such systems. In addition, inference allows us to construct these systems in a more loosely coupled way than traditional approaches. To support this idea, we have built the DeepDive system, which has the design goal of letting the user “think about features— not algorithms.” We think of DeepDive as declarative in that one specifies what they want but not how to get it. We describe our approach with a focus on feature engineering, which we argue is an understudied problem relative to its importance to end-to-end quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficient Inference and Learning in a Large Knowledge Base
    Mach Learn DOI 10.1007/s10994-015-5488-x Efficient inference and learning in a large knowledge base Reasoning with extracted information using a locally groundable first-order probabilistic logic William Yang Wang1 · Kathryn Mazaitis1 · Ni Lao2 · William W. Cohen1 Received: 10 January 2014 / Accepted: 4 March 2015 © The Author(s) 2015 Abstract One important challenge for probabilistic logics is reasoning with very large knowledge bases (KBs) of imperfect information, such as those produced by modern web- scale information extraction systems. One scalability problem shared by many probabilistic logics is that answering queries involves “grounding” the query—i.e., mapping it to a proposi- tional representation—and the size of a “grounding” grows with database size. To address this bottleneck, we present a first-order probabilistic language called ProPPR in which approxi- mate “local groundings” can be constructed in time independent of database size. Technically, ProPPR is an extension to stochastic logic programs that is biased towards short derivations; it is also closely related to an earlier relational learning algorithm called the path ranking algorithm. We show that the problem of constructing proofs for this logic is related to com- putation of personalized PageRank on a linearized version of the proof space, and based on this connection, we develop a provably-correct approximate grounding scheme, based on the PageRank–Nibble algorithm. Building on this, we develop a fast and easily-parallelized weight-learning algorithm for ProPPR. In our experiments, we show that learning for ProPPR is orders of magnitude faster than learning for Markov logic networks; that allowing mutual recursion (joint learning) in KB inference leads to improvements in performance; and that Editors: Gerson Zaverucha and Vítor Santos Costa.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantic Web: a Review of the Field Pascal Hitzler [email protected] Kansas State University Manhattan, Kansas, USA
    Semantic Web: A Review Of The Field Pascal Hitzler [email protected] Kansas State University Manhattan, Kansas, USA ABSTRACT which would probably produce a rather different narrative of the We review two decades of Semantic Web research and applica- history and the current state of the art of the field. I therefore do tions, discuss relationships to some other disciplines, and current not strive to achieve the impossible task of presenting something challenges in the field. close to a consensus – such a thing seems still elusive. However I do point out here, and sometimes within the narrative, that there CCS CONCEPTS are a good number of alternative perspectives. The review is also necessarily very selective, because Semantic • Information systems → Graph-based database models; In- Web is a rich field of diverse research and applications, borrowing formation integration; Semantic web description languages; from many disciplines within or adjacent to computer science, Ontologies; • Computing methodologies → Description log- and a brief review like this one cannot possibly be exhaustive or ics; Ontology engineering. give due credit to all important individual contributions. I do hope KEYWORDS that I have captured what many would consider key areas of the Semantic Web field. For the reader interested in obtaining amore Semantic Web, ontology, knowledge graph, linked data detailed overview, I recommend perusing the major publication ACM Reference Format: outlets in the field: The Semantic Web journal,1 the Journal of Pascal Hitzler. 2020. Semantic Web: A Review Of The Field. In Proceedings Web Semantics,2 and the proceedings of the annual International of . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 7 pages.
    [Show full text]
  • Representing Knowledge in the Semantic Web Oreste Signore W3C Office in Italy at CNR - Via G
    Representing Knowledge in the Semantic Web Oreste Signore W3C Office in Italy at CNR - via G. Moruzzi, 1 -56124 Pisa - (Italy) Phone: +39 050 315 2995 (office) e.mail: [email protected] home page: http://www.weblab.isti.cnr.it/people/oreste/ Abstract – The Web is an immense repository of data and knowledge. Semantic web technologies support semantic interoperability and machine-to-machine interaction. A significant role is played by ontologies, which can support reasoning. Generally much emphasis is given to retrieval, while users tend to browse by association. If data are semantically annotated, an appropriate intelligent user agent aware of the mental model and interests of the user can support her/him in finding the desired information. The whole process must be supported by a core ontology. 1. Introduction W3C leads the evolution of the Web. Universal Access and Semantic Web show a significant impact upon interoperability, technological as well as semantic. In this paper we will discuss the role played by XML to support interoperability within applications, while RDF helps in cross applications interoperability. Subsequently, the paper considers the metadata issue, with a brief description of RDF and the Semantic Web stack. Finally, we discuss an example in the area of cultural heritage, which is very rich in variety of possible associations, presenting an architecture where intelligent agents make use of core ontology to help users in finding the appropriate information. 2. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) The Wide Web Consortium (W3C) was created in October 1994 to lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing common protocols that promote its evolution and ensure its interoperability.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology and Information Systems
    Ontology and Information Systems 1 Barry Smith Philosophical Ontology Ontology as a branch of philosophy is the science of what is, of the kinds and structures of objects, properties, events, processes and relations in every area of reality. ‘Ontology’ is often used by philosophers as a synonym for ‘metaphysics’ (literally: ‘what comes after the Physics’), a term which was used by early students of Aristotle to refer to what Aristotle himself called ‘first philosophy’.2 The term ‘ontology’ (or ontologia) was itself coined in 1613, independently, by two philosophers, Rudolf Göckel (Goclenius), in his Lexicon philosophicum and Jacob Lorhard (Lorhardus), in his Theatrum philosophicum. The first occurrence in English recorded by the OED appears in Bailey’s dictionary of 1721, which defines ontology as ‘an Account of being in the Abstract’. Methods and Goals of Philosophical Ontology The methods of philosophical ontology are the methods of philosophy in general. They include the development of theories of wider or narrower scope and the testing and refinement of such theories by measuring them up, either against difficult 1 This paper is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS-9975557 (“Ontology and Geographic Categories”) and by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation under the auspices of its Wolfgang Paul Program. Thanks go to Thomas Bittner, Olivier Bodenreider, Anita Burgun, Charles Dement, Andrew Frank, Angelika Franzke, Wolfgang Grassl, Pierre Grenon, Nicola Guarino, Patrick Hayes, Kathleen Hornsby, Ingvar Johansson, Fritz Lehmann, Chris Menzel, Kevin Mulligan, Chris Partridge, David W. Smith, William Rapaport, Daniel von Wachter, Chris Welty and Graham White for helpful comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge Extraction Part 3: Graph
    Part 1: Knowledge Graphs Part 2: Part 3: Knowledge Graph Extraction Construction Part 4: Critical Analysis 1 Tutorial Outline 1. Knowledge Graph Primer [Jay] 2. Knowledge Extraction from Text a. NLP Fundamentals [Sameer] b. Information Extraction [Bhavana] Coffee Break 3. Knowledge Graph Construction a. Probabilistic Models [Jay] b. Embedding Techniques [Sameer] 4. Critical Overview and Conclusion [Bhavana] 2 Critical Overview SUMMARY SUCCESS STORIES DATASETS, TASKS, SOFTWARES EXCITING ACTIVE RESEARCH FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS 3 Critical Overview SUMMARY SUCCESS STORIES DATASETS, TASKS, SOFTWARES EXCITING ACTIVE RESEARCH FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS 4 Why do we need Knowledge graphs? • Humans can explore large database in intuitive ways •AI agents get access to human common sense knowledge 5 Knowledge graph construction A1 E1 • Who are the entities A2 (nodes) in the graph? • What are their attributes E2 and types (labels)? A1 A2 • How are they related E3 (edges)? A1 A2 6 Knowledge Graph Construction Knowledge Extraction Graph Knowledge Text Extraction graph Construction graph 7 Two perspectives Extraction graph Knowledge graph Who are the entities? (nodes) What are their attributes? (labels) How are they related? (edges) 8 Two perspectives Extraction graph Knowledge graph Who are the entities? • Named Entity • Entity Linking (nodes) Recognition • Entity Resolution • Entity Coreference What are their • Entity Typing • Collective attributes? (labels) classification How are they related? • Semantic role • Link prediction (edges) labeling • Relation Extraction 9 Knowledge Extraction John was born in Liverpool, to Julia and Alfred Lennon. Text NLP Lennon.. Mrs. Lennon.. his father John Lennon... the Pool .. his mother .. he Alfred Person Location Person Person John was born in Liverpool, to Julia and Alfred Lennon.
    [Show full text]
  • Meet the Data
    Chapter 2 Meet the Data This chapter introduces the basic types of data sources, as well as specific datasets and resources, that we will be working with in later chapters of the book. These may be placed on a spectrum of varying degrees of structure, from unstructured to structured data, as shown in Fig. 2.1. Fig. 2.1 The data spectrum On the unstructured end of the spectrum we have plain text. Typically, these are documents written in natural language.1 As a matter of fact, almost any type of data can be converted into plain text, including web pages, emails, spreadsheets, and database records. Of course, such a conversion would result in an undesired loss of internal document structure and semantics. It is nevertheless always an option to treat data as unstructured, by not making any assumptions about the particular data format. Search in unstructured text is often referred to as full-text search. On the opposite end of the spectrum there is structured data, which is typically stored in relational databases; it is highly organized, tabular, and governed by a strict schema. Search in this type of data is performed using formal query languages, like SQL. These languages allow for a very precise formulation of information needs, but require expert knowledge of the query language and of the underlying database schema. This generally renders them unsuitable for ordinary users. The data we will mostly be dealing with is neither of two extremes and falls somewhere “in the middle.” Therefore, it is termed semi-structured.Itis 1Written in natural language does not imply that the text has to be grammatical (or even sensible).
    [Show full text]
  • Application of Resource Description Framework to Personalise Learning: Systematic Review and Methodology
    Informatics in Education, 2017, Vol. 16, No. 1, 61–82 61 © 2017 Vilnius University DOI: 10.15388/infedu.2017.04 Application of Resource Description Framework to Personalise Learning: Systematic Review and Methodology Tatjana JEVSIKOVA1, Andrius BERNIUKEVIČIUS1 Eugenijus KURILOVAS1,2 1Vilnius University Institute of Mathematics and Informatics Akademijos str. 4, LT-08663 Vilnius, Lithuania 2Vilnius Gediminas Technical University Sauletekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Received: July 2016 Abstract. The paper is aimed to present a methodology of learning personalisation based on ap- plying Resource Description Framework (RDF) standard model. Research results are two-fold: first, the results of systematic literature review on Linked Data, RDF “subject-predicate-object” triples, and Web Ontology Language (OWL) application in education are presented, and, second, RDF triples-based learning personalisation methodology is proposed. The review revealed that OWL, Linked Data, and triples-based RDF standard model could be successfully used in educa- tion. On the other hand, although OWL, Linked Data approach and RDF standard model are al- ready well-known in scientific literature, only few authors have analysed its application to person- alise learning process, but many authors agree that OWL, Linked Data and RDF-based learning personalisation trends should be further analysed. The main scientific contribution of the paper is presentation of original methodology to create personalised RDF triples to further development of corresponding OWL-based ontologies and recommender system. According to this methodology, RDF-based personalisation of learning should be based on applying students’ learning styles and intelligent technologies.
    [Show full text]